On Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 16:04, Glenn Adams wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com (mailto:marcosscaceres@gmail.com)> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 15:58, Glenn Adams wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 7:06 AM, Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com (mailto:marcosscaceres@gmail.com) (mailto:marcosscaceres@gmail.com)> wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 13:48, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> > > > > Marcos - would you please enumerate the CR's uses of HTML5 and state
> > > > > whether each usage is to a stable part of HTML5?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 3. "When getting or setting the preferences attribute, if the origin of a widget instance is mutable (e.g., if the user agent allows document.domain to be dynamically changed), then the user agent must perform the preference-origin security check. The concept of origin is defined in [HTML]."
> > > > Origin is concept that is well understood - as is the same origin policy used by browsers.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > TWI [1] does not define "the origin of a widget instance".
> > That's because they are not bound to any particular URI scheme. Just to some origin.
> > > Nor does HTML5. It is also confusing to say that HTML5 defines the 'concept of origin', given that it normatively refers to The Web Origin Concept [2]. TWI needs to be more specific about what aspect of Origin is being referenced and where that specific aspect is defined.
> >
> >
> > As there are no interoperability issues, I don't agree the TWI spec needs to be updated any further. It's just a simple spec and any further clarifications would just be academic.
> > >
> > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/CR-widgets-apis-20111213/
> > > [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6454
> >
>
>
> in that case, please record an objection on my part
>
What, exactly, are you objecting to? Can you demonstrate that there is an issue?